Debates of Nov. 27th, 1996

Judges Act

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say right off that the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party are a thousand leagues apart on this matter. They want an elected Senate with greater powers; we say the Senate is useless.

We are already overgoverned in Canada. We have a federal government, provincial and municipal governments, school boards, and we could add parishes, church authorities, and that means even more people. Canada is overgoverned. We do not need a Senate, whether its members are appointed, as is now the case, or elected.

Is it good to have the Senate propose amendments to a bill? I say that once a bill is introduced to 295 members elected to represent the people, broken down, studied, analyzed and discussed in committees where experts and witnesses of all sorts are heard and briefs are submitted, there is no point in a Senate-appointed or elected-making other changes.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 26, I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of considering the Senate amendments stage of Bill C-42.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

And fewer than 15 members having risen.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since fewer than 15 members are opposed, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Bourassa-Immigration.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Fisheries Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

When this bill was last before the House, a subamendment was moved. I wish to indicate to hon. members that in the view of the Chair the subamendment is in order and accordingly I wish to put the subamendment to the House. It is moved by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam that:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

"and that the committee report back to the House no later than June 19, 1997.

The debate is on the subamendment.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Before we start debate on Bill C-62, I would like some clarification about what happened when members were called to the House to vote. Our television screens showed 20 minutes remaining before the vote. Then the bells suddenly stopped ringing and the House resumed debate on Bill C-62 without giving members any notice. What is happening exactly? I would like to understand. How is this government being run?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Order, please. During the sounding of the bells, the hon. Chief Government Whip asked the Chair to defer the division until 5.45 p.m., which is what happened.

We then resumed debate on Bill C-62 now before the House. We can now resume debate if an hon. member wishes to speak.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the extension of the sitting. The government did request an extension, but our Standing Orders state that such a request must be made during the last hour, which was not the case. I would appreciate it if the Chair could rule on this point.

I brought the matter to the attention of the Table earlier and I thought we had an understanding with the government. It looks like the government attempted to destabilize us and proceed anyway. I would like the Chair to rule on this point. I think the government's request was not made in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House.

I was extremely vigilant in immediately making my request to the Table.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would like to concur with with remarks of the member who brought forward that point.

As I understand it, a motion to extend the sitting hours can only occur in the last hour that the House is sitting. Government Orders were extended because of Statements by Ministers and that last hour did not occur, according to the Table, until 5.06 p.m. The order to extend the hours was brought in before five o'clock, which meant that opposition parties could not be ready for that particular extension or prepared to oppose the extension of hours because we were not in the last hour yet.

We tried to rise on a point of order, but the bells had already begun to ring. I do not know how we could have protested this. However, I would agree with the Bloc member that the motion for the extension of hours was inappropriate and outside the standing orders, and opposition parties were not able to respond because of the timing of the motion.

The motion should not have been accepted by the Chair. It was out of order and it should have been ruled out of order at that time.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Further to the comments made by the Reform Party whip, I wish to point out that I drew this matter to the attention of the Deputy Speaker who was in the chair at that time, prior to 5.06 this evening. Therefore, we recorded our objection prior to the last hour even commencing. Standing Order 26(1)(b) was not complied with.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I spoke without notes. I had written notes and, with your permission, I will be more explicit in my approach.

Pursuant to Standing Order 26(1)( b ), the motion to extend sitting must be proposed in the last hour of government orders. However, the ministerial statement made by the Minister of Justice pushed everything back. The government had to table its motion after5.04 p.m. Unfortunately, it tabled it at 4.58 p.m., a few minutes before the end.

Mr. Speaker, you should not have allowed the government's motion. This is the issue on which I am asking you to rule, that is whether Standing Order 26(1)( b ) was complied with. Personally, I come to the conclusion that the answer is no, and that you should not agree to the government's request to extend the sitting.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The Chair thanks the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, the Reform Party whip and the hon. member for St. Albert for their interventions in respect of this matter.

Standing Order 26(1) provides that except during Private Members' Business when the Speaker is in the chair, a member may propose a motion without notice to continue a sitting. I do not need to go into all the details. However, the motion must be proposed under Standing Order 26(1)(b), as the hon. member has pointed out, in the hour preceding the time at which the business under consideration should be interrupted by dinner hour, private members' hour or the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

The question that arises here is whether the motion was proposed within the hour prior to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

As the hon. member pointed out, the proceedings today were extended by reason of ministerial statements. It appears that the motion made by the chief government whip which resulted in the extension of time was made six minutes before the last hour before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. The motion at the time was accepted by the Chair and was put to the House. Fewer than the requisite number of members rose to object and the motion was deemed carried.

In view of the fact that the matter was a procedural motion and that it was proposed at a time contrary to the standing orders, the Chair is of the view that the motion is indeed out of order and has not been adopted.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill, and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the third reading consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.